To Replace Ginsberg Before the Election, Or Hold Off Until After the Election?

[meaner gene]

You said "during an election year" is the same as "within a year of an election"

That's being an a-hole.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You said "during an election year" is the same as "within a year of an election"

That's being an a-hole.

Just like a partisan impeachment

 

[meaner gene]

Your own citation says:

Four nominations were made in lame-duck sessions after the election; three of those were left open for the winner of the election.

 

[Nostra]

You said "during an election year" is the same as "within a year of an election"

That's being an a-hole.

Dude, you need to hang it up. You keep making yourself look worse with each post.

You asked for proof nominees were approved after a President lost the election. I brought a graph showing three were. You latched onto numbers in 1795 that you didn't comprehend, got your ass handed to you, and you are still trying to act like you aren't a complete moron.

It isn't working, Asswipe.

 

[Nostra]

Your own citation says:

Four nominations were made in lame-duck sessions after the election; three of those were left open for the winner of the election.

So? We aren't in a "lame duck session after an election" you raving lunatic.

Go to bed you fucking moron. You keep making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Your own citation says:

Four nominations were made in lame-duck sessions after the election; three of those were left open for the winner of the election.

So? We aren't in a "lame duck session after an election" you raving lunatic.

Go to bed you fucking moron. You keep making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post.

Nostra, do you really have to bludgeon this guy? You have utterly embarrassed him, back off. Unless one is living under a rock they would know the country is polarized and rules of engagement consist of anything goes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

and we're going by Biden's rule, so what's the problem?

Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Justice

The current Democratic presidential nominee said in 2016 that he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court appointee "even a few months before a presidential election."

www.newsweek.com

I agree with Biden. A FEW MONTHS

It's not even TWO (a couple of) months ASS......

many people would agree that "a few" means three or more So, "a few" cannot be one, but it can be as low as two.

But his point still stands. He at the time used a few months only because Obama nominated his appointee in a presidential election year. But I'll give you that: a few means more than one. What we are talking about here is a month and a half. So do you think his rules would have changed over two weeks; that he would have said at the time, two months is okay, but a month and a half is out of the question?

 

[meaner gene]

You keep making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post.

You said "election year" and when I pointed out you were talking about both 1795 and 1796, you changed to "within a year of an election"

That's tap dancing.

 

[meaner gene]

Nostra, do you really have to bludgeon this guy? You have utterly embarrassed him, back off. Unless one is living under a rock they would know the country is polarized and rules of engagement consist of anything goes.

Embarassed? Nostra said that in the USSC case of Texas V United States.

That Trump represented Texas.

 

[Nostra]

Your own citation says:

Four nominations were made in lame-duck sessions after the election; three of those were left open for the winner of the election.

So? We aren't in a "lame duck session after an election" you raving lunatic.

Go to bed you fucking moron. You keep making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post.

Nostra, do you really have to bludgeon this guy? You have utterly embarrassed him, back off. Unless one is living under a rock they would know the country is polarized and rules of engagement consist of anything goes.

It is like picking on the short bus kid. No challenge at all, but when he refuses to accept reality I will be there to remind him of it.

 

[Nostra]

You keep making yourself look dumber and dumber with every post.

You said "election year" and when I pointed out you were talking about both 1795 and 1796, you changed to "within a year of an election"

That's tap dancing.

Dude, you need to hang it up. You keep making yourself look worse with each post.

You asked for proof nominees were approved after a President lost the election. I brought a graph showing three were. You latched onto numbers in 1795 that you didn't comprehend, got your ass handed to you, and you are still trying to act like you aren't a complete moron.

It isn't working, Asswipe.

 

[Nostra]

Nostra, do you really have to bludgeon this guy? You have utterly embarrassed him, back off. Unless one is living under a rock they would know the country is polarized and rules of engagement consist of anything goes.

Embarassed? Nostra said that in the USSC case of Texas V United States.

That Trump represented Texas.

You are a lying sack, Dumbass.
I never said Trump represented Texas.
You posted a link thinking it showed Trump challenging Obamacare, and I pointed out your link showed Texas challenging Obamacare.


You just demonstrated you have the reading skills of a retarded popcorn fart.

 

[meaner gene]

I agree with Biden. A FEW MONTHS

It's not even TWO (a couple of) months ASS......

many people would agree that "a few" means three or more So, "a few" cannot be one, but it can be as low as two.

But his point still stands. He at the time used a few months only because Obama nominated his appointee in a presidential election year

Words have meaning, and Biden said "A FEW" meaning several months.

This happened less than a month and a half from an election (45 days)
You can't even round it up to a couple of months. No less a FEW.

So I agreed with Biden, a FEW months.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Nostra, do you really have to bludgeon this guy? You have utterly embarrassed him, back off. Unless one is living under a rock they would know the country is polarized and rules of engagement consist of anything goes.

Embarassed? Nostra said that in the USSC case of Texas V United States.

That Trump represented Texas.

Yes. You do realize that since Trump won the Democrats have utterly tried to bash him while not caring about the country. Look at what they did to judge Kavanaugh. Disgraceful and all a fake plot by Blasey Ford. Partisan politics and partisan news is upon us. You know this and are playing coy. Please explain why. I am genuinely curious. Elections have consequences. GOP controls the Presidency and the Senate so why not take advantage? Would be stupid not to. I would wait but after what happened to Kavanaugh, in my opinion the GOP needs to give the Democrats a taste of their own medicine

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I agree with Biden. A FEW MONTHS

It's not even TWO (a couple of) months ASS......

many people would agree that "a few" means three or more So, "a few" cannot be one, but it can be as low as two.

But his point still stands. He at the time used a few months only because Obama nominated his appointee in a presidential election year

Words have meaning, and Biden said "A FEW" meaning several months.

This happened less than a month and a half from an election (45 days)
You can't even round it up to a couple of months. No less a FEW.

So I agreed with Biden, a FEW months.

Translation...Biden is waiting for Sanders and AOC to tell him who to nominate.

 

[meaner gene]

So do you think his rules would have changed over two weeks; that he would have said at the time, two months is okay, but a month and a half is out of the question?

The law is clear. It says that 45 days is the cut-off point after which the election has started. So two months, is pre-election, while 45 days is during an election.

So YES, those two weeks makes it a completely different ballgame.

 

[jackflash]

I'm torn over the replacing of Ms Ginsberg before the end of the year. On one hand, it would insure a conservative justice replacing her.
On the other hand, it would give the left a lot of negative ammunition to go after Trump for trying to replace her after what McConnell did in 2016.
Trump doesn't need the extra distraction during the campaigning, along with the msm going after him relentlessly for trying.
If he was upfront and saying that he's going to hold off, it could give him some positive momentum in the eyes of the voters in the swing states.
What say you?

Seriously, the statist left is finished regarding the up coming election. That DNC sponsored antifa/BLM fiasco alone has caused the DNC a fatal injury as many or @ least a fair amount of the moderate Democrat constituency had to pack up their bags & move into another camp. The RNC has also made serious bungles before but this antifa/BLM fiasco could not have been unleashed @ a worse time for upcoming DNC candidates. I'd say seat the new judge ASAP.

 

[Nostra]

So do you think his rules would have changed over two weeks; that he would have said at the time, two months is okay, but a month and a half is out of the question?

The law is clear. It says that 45 days is the cut-off point after which the election has started. So two months, is pre-election, while 45 days is during an election.

So YES, those two weeks makes it a completely different ballgame.

Link us up to this law that says you can't nominate a justice 45 days from an election.

This should be good................

 

[meaner gene]

Embarassed? Nostra said that in the USSC case of Texas V United States.

That Trump represented Texas.

You are a lying sack, Dumbass.
I never said Trump represented Texas.

From YOUR link, you raving idiot.

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had agreed it would take up the case Texas v. United States

Since when does Texas = Trump, Moron.

Looks like you did say that Trump represented Texas.

I have your quote right here.

 

[meaner gene]

So do you think his rules would have changed over two weeks; that he would have said at the time, two months is okay, but a month and a half is out of the question?

The law is clear. It says that 45 days is the cut-off point after which the election has started. So two months, is pre-election, while 45 days is during an election.

So YES, those two weeks makes it a completely different ballgame.

Link us up to this law that says you can't nominate a justice 45 days from an election.

This should be good................

That wasn't what I was arguing with Ray from Cleveland.